BHARAT STEEL TUBES LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 895 · Decided: 04-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BHARAT STEEL TUBES LTD. & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 
MAY 4, 1988 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ, RANGANATH MISRA AND 
M.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973: Sections 25, 28 and 28A: 
A 
B 
Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948: Section 11(3): Sales Tax-
Assessment-When complete-When no statutory period fixed-
Necessityfor assessment to be completed expeditiously-Within reason-
C 
able period_.:._What is reasonable period-Depeniient on facts of case-
Best judgment assessment-Prior notice to dealer by assessing 
authority-Whether necessary-Question left open. 
The petitioners are a public limited company and its General D 
Manager (Legal). The Company was a manufacturer of electric resis-
tence, welded steel tubes and pipes, and registered as a dealer under the 
Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 as also the Central Sales Tax Act . 
. It filed returns for all the quarters covered within the period 1968-69 to 
1974-75 as prescribed by the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 till 
March 31, 1973 and under the Haryana Act for the quarters of the 
E 
remaining years as the Haryana Act came into force with effect from 
May 5, 1973. On the receipt of notice relating to the assessment years 
1968-69 to 1973-74 in the prescribed form ST-XIV under s. 14(2) of the 
Punjab Act, and in the prescribed form ST-25 under S. 28(2) of the 
Haryana Act relating to the year 1974-75 the petitioner-Company 
appeared before respondent No. 2-Assessing Authority, and complied 
F 
with the requirements of the said notice by production of documents, 
books and other papers. While the matter was thus proceeding, respon· 
dent No. 2 again issued a notice on September 24, 1982 requiring the 
petitioner-Company to produce certain further records and documents. 
The petitioners in their writ petition challenged the notices and 
G 
.also the vires of Section 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 
1973. 
On the question: Whether an order of assessment under sub-
section (3) of section 11 of the Punjab Act or section 28(3) of the 
Haryana Act can now be completed or would be barred by limitation. 
H 
895 
A 
B 
c 
896 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 3 S.CR. 
Dismissing the writ petition, 
HELD: I. Assessment of tax should be completed with-. expedi-
tion. It involves the revenue to the State. [90SB-C] 
2. In the case of a registered dealer who collects sales-tax on 
behalf of the State, there is no justification for him to withhold the 
payment of the tax so collected. If a timely assessment is completed, the 
dues of the State can be conveniently ascertained and collected. Delay in 
completion of assessment often creates problems. Long delay is not in 
the interest of either the assessee or the State. [90SC-D I 
3. In the absence of any prescribed period of limitation, the 
assessment has to be completed within a reasonable period. What 
such reasonable period would be, would depend upon the facts of each 
case. [904E-F] 
4. Until by statute, a limitation is provided, it is proper for the 
D 
State Government to require, by statutory rules or appropriate instruc-
tions, to ensure completion of assessments with expedition and reason-
able haste but subject to rules of natural justice. [90SE-F] 
In the instant case, though notices were issued under sections 
11(2) of the Punjab Act or Section 28(2) of the Haryana Act within a 
-~ 
E 
reasonable period from the filing of returns for the respective quarters 
in the assessment years under consideration, further action had not 
been taken by the assessing officer to complete the assessments. Now 
that the assessing authority intends to complete assessments under 
section 11(3) of the Act, no prejudice is seen to be caused to the assessee 
if the assessing authority is permitted to complete the assessment now. 
F 
In the situation which has thus arisen, it would be appropriate to call 
~­
upon the assessing authority to complete all these pending assessments 
G 
within a total period of four months on the basis of available material 
in the record before him, and such other material as the authority 
may obtain. Such assessment has to be only under section 11(3) of the 
Act. [9040-E; G-H; 90SA-B] 
. 
S. It may be !hat in a given case the original notice under section 
II (2) or a subsequent order requiring production of some more 
material on specific points is not complied with. Non-compliance with 
the notice under section 11(2) of the Act leads to a situation where a best 
judgment assessment can

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.